Page 239

Oppose the common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.

A. D. 867.-We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant baptism, namely, Hancmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying. This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations respecting the nonbaptizing of infants, opposed the pope, not only in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus, "Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II in many points, in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that he could not be bishop and king at the same time; that he should have nothing to do with secular affairs." Chron., 9th book, page 305, col. 2, from Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52.

It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, against the pope, and, consequently, also against the Roman church.

It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by him against the pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture. Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said bishop in every article of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the pope, who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.

A. D. 880.-At this time there lived Paschasius, a remarkably experienced and virtuous man, who wrote various things against the belief of the Roman church; but as the thread of our account extends only, or, at least, principally, over the matter of baptism. we will also here turn our special atten ion to the same, and, so as not to be encumbered with many testimonies, present but one passage of his belief with reference to this.matter, as recorded in Jacob Mehrning's history of baptism.

Paschasius (de Corp. and Sang. Dom., cap. 10, page 594) says, "In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God, that we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ; in which baptism, when the Holy Ghost is shed abroad in the souls of the regenerated, the whole church of Christ is quickened, and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.";

Here he indicates three things incompatible with infant baptism. Firstly, when he says that"In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God." For, that this cannot relate to infants, appears from the nature of faith and of the believers; as to faith, it is a sure confidence of the things hoped for. Heb. 11:1. This faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Rom. 10:17. That neither this sure confidence, nor hope, nor intelligent hearing of the Word of God, can have place in infants, is quite evident, since neither their powers nor their knowledge can reach these things. See Deut. 1:39; I Cor. 13:11.

Secondly, when he says, "That we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ." For the word regeneration is no where in Scripture applied to infants, but to adults. John 3:3; Tit. 3:5. Likewise, to be delivered from evil, is applied only to such persons as, through evil works, were previously ensnared and held captive by sin. II Tim. 2:26. Hence, the second also does in no wise apply to infants.

Thirdly, when he, expounding the utility of baptism, says, "In which baptism, the whole church of Christ is quickened and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all." For, when mention is made here of the quickening Spirit of God, which in baptism is imparted to the church, or, at least, to those who, by baptism, are incorporated as members into the church, it follows almost incontrovertibly, that this relates neither to infants nor to infant baptism; for, as regards infants, instead of becoming quickened by the Spirit of God, after baptism, that is, instead of becoming adorned with all divine and Christian virtues, we,see, on the contrary, that they generally, from that time on, as their powers increase, are led by their own spirit, so that with the increasing years, perverseness also increases, yea, sometimes gains the ascendency; hence, those who have reached their years, are admonished, that they must be born again, that is, that they must lead another and better life; or that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5, 7.